The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

Does that mean that the playoffs go back down to 5 teams as a waste of time having 8 from 12 in there. Also what if the Broncos come bottom and Martyn Sadlers excuse that they are needed at the top table of our game

I think it means that the Broncos will struggle to make it through next season as who is going to throw away all that money on a club that's almost guaranteed to be one of the relegated two. It's hard enough investing in a struggling club that you know is safe from relegation but I can imagine that it's a seriously depressing concept throwing money at a club for nothing.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

So the two relegated teams will almost certainly struggle to survive in the championship without the Sky money. I assume broncos will be relegated which means no London club and the negatives that move will bring.

Each season the SL clubs panic buy overseas talent with the fear of relegation and the young homegrown talent are overlooked as a result.

There will be the yoyo club(s) who will struggle to survive everytime they're relegated having gambled on staying in SL.

Step backwards, but fair enough if the decision was taken for financial reasons and the overall good of the game. I am struggling to see the positives in this move. Sad day for Rugby League.

I'm going to guess that ther'll be parachute payments again to help ease the distress

I think it means that the Broncos will struggle to make it through next season as who is going to throw away all that money on a club that's almost guaranteed to be one of the relegated two. It's hard enough investing in a struggling club that you know is safe from relegation but I can imagine that it's a seriously depressing concept throwing money at a club for nothing.

Give over. The club has lost fans since the lack of P&R. I'm sure David Hughes was due to pack in even if licensing had remained. At least there is somert to play for at the bottom which will bring fans in. I stopped going several weeks ago for the same reason

I don't know the figures but I am sure there's far less overseas players now than there were during P&R. It's taken some time but the licensing system worked in bringing through more homegrown players as clubs can afford to blood youngsters without the threat of relegation. Now we'll soon see a revert back to the panic buy of overseas players again. Clubs need to concentrate on improving their youth system and bringing through homegrown players rather than over spending on overseas players.

The same panic buying happens in soccer due to relegation and then clubs are screwed financially as a result. Only have to look at QPR - if it wasn't for the cash cow they'd be done for like Portsmouth.

Give over. The club has lost fans since the lack of P&R. I'm sure David Hughes was due to pack in even if licensing had remained. At least there is somert to play for at the bottom which will bring fans in. I stopped going several weeks ago for the same reason

I am going to reserve judgement until the plans are fully defined, agreed, voted on, approved and in action. Even the press release is equivocal: "once the RFL Executive has delivered its report into the 12-team Super League options."

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

So far all that appears to have been decided is how many teams will comprise Superleague in 2015. The method of maintaining that number hasn't yet been decided. The clubs from the championships and community game will be giving their vote on how that is achieved. The number of SL clubs was always a separate issue as only the SL clubs had the power to decide that (as explained by one of the council types from the RFL on Boots n All last week). I would imagine there is the possibility of qualified P&R or perhaps even retaining some form of licensing. I don't believe that the only two options on the table are those mentioned in the press release. I think that is just RFL spin because their interest lies with the 12 into three 8s option.

I don't know the figures but I am sure there's far less overseas players now than there were during P&R. It's taken some time but the licensing system worked in bringing through more homegrown players as clubs can afford to blood youngsters without the threat of relegation. Now we'll soon see a revert back to the panic buy of overseas players again. Clubs need to concentrate on improving their youth system and bringing through homegrown players rather than over spending on overseas players.

The same panic buying happens in soccer due to relegation and then clubs are screwed financially as a result. Only have to look at QPR - if it wasn't for the cash cow they'd be done for like Portsmouth.

I have not seen wholescale reductions or even rule changes to lower the influx. I dont like overseas players either, but why cant there be a 1 or 2 overseas player rule under P&R? I suspect it is the top teams who want to still be able to get hold of 5 top Aussies/Kiwis

I'm in favour of 12 teams for Superleague. It's our elite competition. We don't have a big enough player pool to provide an elite standard of competition within a 14 team league.

Huddersfield v Catalans was a top 8 game and was garbage. It happens and will happen with 12 or 10 or even 6. What has happened is that people have kept repeating that we don't have enough players until enough started to believe it.